DISTRICT COURT, HAMILTON.

Waikato Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1566, 18 July 1882, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT, HAMILTON.

Yesterday.— (Before His Honor Judge Macclonalcl). John Skixner, bankrupt, applied in person, for bis discharge. The trustee's report being satisfactory, His Honor granted the application. Wylie v. Thomson. — Mr Dyer for defendant and Mr Hay for plaintiff. Mr Dyer applied for an adjournment till next Court day, on account of the absence of an important witness. Mr Hay offering no objection, the application was granted on the usual terms. Browx v. Buck.— Mr Hvy for plaintiff and Mr O'Neill for defendant. Mr O'Neill said he had been expecting to be instructed in the matter, but through some oversight on the past of his client a mistake had arisen, and he was obliged to ask for an adjournment. Mr Hay objected to an adjournment, as a delay would materially prejudice his client. The delay was granted conditionally that the defendant should pay the costs of the day and give the usual security for the amount. McPhersox v. Bucklamd was adjourned till next Court day. Coi/BMAN v. Knox, claim £33 10s 6d, for meat supplied to Tawhiao and followers during their visit to Hamilton in July, 1881. The evidence of plaintiff and witnesses went to show that Mr Knox had ordered the meat, and had given orders that no meat should be supplied to anyone but by his order. The meat was supplied and delivered according to Mr Knoxs instructions and charged to him personally. Mr O'Neill, who appeared for defendant, said the meat was ordered partly by Major .Mair and partly by Mr Knox, in the capacity of agent, and this the accounts of plaintiff as rendered to defendant clearly showed. His Honor, in giving judgment, .thought as the plaintiff and his three witnesses had sworn that Mr Knox had ordered the meat to bo supplied, never giving the plaintiff to understand that it was to be charged to any person but himself, there \vas no use in Mr Knox swearing to the contrary, unless he had further evidence to substantiate his own. Judgment was therefore given in favor of the plaintiff with costs (£6 8s). Peek v. A. Isaacs. —Claim £45 15s 8d r for work and labor done. Mr Keesing for plaintiff and Mr Dyer for defendant. Defendant had paid £32 3s* 6d into Court. After considerable evidence had been adduced, judgment was given for plaintiff for £5' 10s 6d 'and costs. • : Re -Arthur Graham.— Mil Keesing applied for a , discharge, for Arthur Graham, /deb,tor ? ; of • Cambridge.- Application granted.^ \f " " ttv. v ,/ , ' 'i,

', t-T^ridei?6^rei required, for';, the lease of s G % oJl'a)i?|^^ a,re- • H^sMe^aVftMußra^^cos.i^Waitoaj^adver^ notcla;raca-vrithinfourteen^'d^y?>from4lbt? qatet.